[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 109 (Thursday, September 7, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6347-H6352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ WATCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening as we
come to the floor again as part of what we have come to call our Iraq
Watch, and I am grateful that we are joined by several colleagues this
evening, Mr. Bishop from New York, Mr. McDermott from Washington State,
and others that will be joining us throughout this early part of the
evening.
Now, let me start, as we always have, by recognizing the valiant
service of the men and women who wear the uniform. And as our leader
Ms. Pelosi often says, our men and women who wear the uniform deserve a
leadership that is worthy of the sacrifice that they make on a daily
basis. I am proud of this Congress, inasmuch as it has been able to
distinguish the warriors from the war, and so we continue to honor
those brave men and women who wear the uniform of this country and who
sacrifice daily on our behalf.
And yet, as events unfold around the globe, but specifically in the
Middle East as it relates to Iraq, what we find is even amongst those
who initially favored the war, such as pundits like Thomas Friedman,
who now have come to say that we have got to come to the realization
that we are no longer midwifing democracy in Iraq but, in essence,
babysitting an insurgent civil war. So this evening we come here to
discuss Iraq from the context of the mistakes that have been made and
the need for accountability, starting with the resignation of the
Secretary of Defense.
At some point, somewhere along the line, there has got to be
accountability for the actions that have transpired in Iraq. We were
wrong about the information that led up to going into the war. In fact,
the strongest critics against us going into the war were people such as
Scowcroft, Eagleburger, Kissinger and Baker, hardly left-leaning
liberals, but people who understood international policy and the severe
consequences that would result if we ended up going into Iraq without
the full support of the world. And so Americans everywhere kind of have
to scratch their heads and say, how is it that we had the entire world
with us when we invaded Afghanistan and end up virtually with no
support in Iraq.
It is clear from discussions with policymakers and former generals
that a series of mistakes have been made, not the least of which was
going against our own national policy, the Weinberger Doctrine, which
stated very clearly the United States should never go to war against
another country unless its vital interests are threatened; and the
Powell corollary to that, if we do go in, we should go in with
overwhelming force.
In both cases, that doctrine and corollary were rejected in favor of
the doctrine of preemption and unilateralism, which has left our allies
looking at us as we twist slowly in the winds of Iraq, as Friedman
says, babysitting an insurrection and civil war while our most precious
of resources, our men and women who serve this country, are in harm's
way.
We need a new direction. We ought to send a very clear signal to the
world, to the people in this country that it is time for
accountability; that it is time to say that mistakes were made and then
move on. And we can start with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stepping
down, as he should.
The head of the 9/11 Commission has indicated to both Republicans and
Democrats alike that we need to continue to adopt those resolutions and
recommendations that they have found in their studies, 20 of which
still aren't implemented, which is over half. And so in order to
prosecute the war on terror, we have got to be able to accomplish those
goals. But without a Congress that wants to hold the President
accountable, that is not going to happen.
A gentleman that has been doing just that and speaking out in his
district has been Tim Bishop of New York, and at this time, I would
like to yield to him.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. I thank my friend from Connecticut for
yielding, and I also thank him for his ongoing leadership on this and
so many other issues of importance here in our Congress.
Let me just pick up on a few comments that were made with respect to
oversight and accountability. And I find it particularly ironic, when
one studies the tragic history of our involvement in Iraq, and whether
it begins with the misuse of prewar intelligence or whether it begins
in effect with the reasons that we were given for going to war, none of
which turned out to be accurate, all of which turned out really to be
more about marketing a war than about a real threat that imperiled our
safety and security, that we are now being told by these very same
people that have led us so far astray, that have so weakened our Nation
and so exposed us to a war on terror that we must fight much more
vigilantly than we have thus far; we are now being told that these are
the people that we must continue to keep in leadership positions in
order to keep us free and safe. And, in fact, it is their very
leadership, and I am speaking specifically about the Secretary of
Defense and other civilian leaders in the Pentagon, that have led us so
far astray.
When you chronicle the mistakes that were made in Iraq, we best-cased
the result of our involvement in Iraq and we worst-cased the threat
that was there. We invaded with too few troops. We have certainly
sufficient troops to overthrow a regime that spent a fraction on
defense relative to what we spend on defense, but we invaded with too
few troops to secure the peace. We failed to secure the borders. We
failed to secure ammo dumps. We failed to see to it that our troops
were properly equipped and outfitted, and that was because the
leadership of the Pentagon refused to accept the warnings that had been
given by so many different experts in this area, that we weren't going
to be welcomed with open arms, that we weren't going to be treated as
conquering heroes and liberators, but in fact we were going to be
viewed as occupiers and invaders.
But our troops arrived with insufficient body armor, with
insufficiently armored vehicles because this insurgency was not
recognized or anticipated. And yet we have these very same people
telling us that they are the ones that are going to keep us safe.
{time} 1630
I will just say one other thing, and then yield back. I think this is
an administration that specializes in giving us false choices. We are
now being presented with the latest false choice, and that is that
those of us who do not support the ``stay the course'' in Iraq can be
accused of wanting to abandon the war on terror.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There is not a soul on our
side of the aisle that would advocate abandoning the war on terror.
Everyone on our side of the aisle would advocate continuing to wage
that war, but to wage it with the full resources of this Nation and to
wage it much more intelligently than we have thus far.
The sad truth about our involvement in Iraq is that it has stripped
us of the resources that we need to wage the war on terror. It is why
Osama bin Laden remains at large 5 years after September 11, and it is
why al Qaeda remains as powerful as it is.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. If the gentleman will let me ask a
question, knowing you are from New York and knowing specifically you
are from Long Island, and, of course, with a solemn date approaching us
of September 11, do most citizens in New York understand, in your
estimation, the difference between the war on global terrorism and the
war in Iraq and see
[[Page H6348]]
them as different subject matters, or, as Ike Skelton on the Armed
Services Committee has been so nobly trying to demonstrate, the
difference between the insurrection and civil war in Iraq and the war
on terror? Or has the administration's attempts to blur the lines
confused people? What is the sense of New Yorkers?
Mr. BISHOP of New York. My sense is that New Yorkers have not been
fooled. My sense is that New Yorkers, and there is hardly a New Yorker
who did not lose a loved one or did not lose a friend in the Twin
Towers, most New Yorkers recognize that we are fighting two separate
and distinct wars, despite, as you say, the administration's efforts to
blur the distinction and to cojoin them in an effort to justify
something that the vast majority of Americans now recognize was a
tragic mistake.
When I go around my district, one of the questions I ask people is do
they feel safer today, in August of 2006, than they did on September
12, 2001, and the answer overwhelmingly is no. The answer
overwhelmingly is no.
I think most people recognize in my district, and I am grateful for
this, that the war in Iraq, which was purportedly to make us safe, make
us more safe, has in fact imperiled us beyond where we were the day we
invaded.
I think that that is an important recognition and an important
distinction for those of us who recognize the distinction needs to
continue to be made.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. We have been joined by the gentleman from
Massachusetts. I think for a number of our listeners, really the whole
idea for coming to this floor came from Bill Delahunt. The idea really
wasn't hatched here on the floor of the House of Representatives. It
was an idea that was hatched in town hall meetings in Nantucket and on
the Cape that Bill Delahunt held. He encouraged other Members,
including myself, who had them in West Hartford and Manchester,
Connecticut, and from there, because our voices were muffled. Or if you
spoke out against the war, you were deemed unpatriotic. But it was
because of his efforts in organizing an Iraq Watch that this has
persisted and the truth has been able to continue to come out with
regard to our involvement.
At this time I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the founder
of this great movement.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think,
tragically, and I mean this sincerely, tragically those of us who spoke
out early against the invasion in Iraq, because we believed that there
was not significant evidence which established that Iraq was a clear
and present danger to the United States and our allies, we have been
proven to be correct.
Tim Bishop, our colleague from New York, used the term ``abandoned.''
Accusations have been made that some who have criticized the competence
and the rationale of this administration regarding Iraq have
``abandoned'' the war on terror. That is patently false. That is
untrue. There is no relationship between the war against terrorism and
the war in Iraq.
Now, let me put forth a hypothesis: this administration abandoned the
war against terror in a very real way when we were distracted by the
neoconservative vision of invading Iraq, because the consequence of the
invasion of Iraq was in a large degree the diversion of those assets
and initiatives that were necessary to secure Afghanistan, where al
Qaeda had been harbored, where al Qaeda thrived, and where there was an
opportunity to apprehend Osama bin Laden.
But, no, we were more interested in Saddam Hussein, who was an
archenemy of Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden considered Saddam Hussein
an apostate, an infidel, an enemy of his version, his perverted
version, of Islam. In fact, in 1994, it was Osama bin Laden who
approached the Saudi royal family and suggested they combine forces and
depose Saddam Hussein because he was an apostate; he was a defiler of
Islam.
So what do we have today? We have a situation in Afghanistan where
the headlines now read: ``A Resurgence of the Taliban.'' That
government that harbored and gave support to Osama bin Laden and al
Qaeda, they are coming back. Another headline in the past 2 days, the
British general who heads the NATO deployment in Afghanistan made this
plea: ``I need more troops or we will lose Afghanistan.''
So who abandoned the war on terror? Who abandoned the war on terror?
Do not confuse the war in Iraq and the war on terror. We all have an
obligation to educate ourselves about the differences, the nuances, the
realities on the ground. This is too important. This is about our
future, and this is about the future of American generations far into
the next decades.
I know my colleague from Maryland who has joined us, Chris Van
Hollen, has a specific interest in Afghanistan. What is happening today
in Afghanistan is a disgraceful example of the incompetence and the
legacy of this administration's policy by going into Iraq.
And what have we achieved? We have achieved a resurgence of the
Taliban and other terrorist elements in Afghanistan. By the way, what
else we have achieved is we have created a new superpower in the
region, Iran. Because while we are standing here discussing among
ourselves this region in the world, let it be very clear to the
American people that there is an emerging warm relationship between
Iran and the new government in Iraq. Do your homework, and you will
discover that there is a bilateral military cooperation agreement that
exists today between Iraq and Iran.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I would like to ask the gentleman a
question: What you are telling me and you are telling our viewing
audience this evening, you voted, and I believe the vote was near
unanimous in the House of Representatives and the Senate, to invade
Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom; is that correct?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I voted, and, again, with one exception out of 435
Members, there was a unanimous vote here in this Chamber, bipartisan,
Republicans and Democrats and Independent, to go to Afghanistan and
destroy al Qaeda and find Osama bin Laden and apprehend him.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Was not the rest of the world united in
that effort with the United States?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I have this vivid memory of the day after 9/11, a
headline that appeared in the paper of record in France that said: ``We
Are All Americans Today.'' We had support in every corner of the world
for what we were doing. We would have succeeded in the war on terror by
now. But, no. But, no. We invaded Iraq, and clearly that has created
implications for our national security.
If I may just for one moment, and I am not alone when I say this, it
is interesting, today in the Wall Street Journal a former Republican
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who
succeeded in securing a majority for the Republican Party in this House
in 1994, was quoted. Remember, this is a Republican, a leader. The
speculation is that he is considering running for the Presidency in
2008.
This is what Newt Gingrich had to say. Just consider the following:
``Osama bin Laden is still at large.'' I agree. ``Afghanistan is still
insecure.'' I would suggest that it is unraveling. ``Iraq is still
violent.'' 3,000 deaths a month. ``North Korea and Iran are still
building nuclear weapons and missiles. Terrorist recruiting is still
occurring in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and across the
planet.''
Those are Newt Gingrich's words, today, in the Wall Street Journal.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. So how is it then, given all that you have
said, that with the world behind us in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom, that we would, if you will excuse the phrase, why did we ``cut
and run'' in Afghanistan and then focus on Iraq?
As the gentleman from New York pointed out, people are able to
distinguish between the enemy who actually knocked down the Twin Towers
in New York, struck the Pentagon, and, as Tim Roemer pointed out
yesterday, were it not for those brave souls on Flight 93, would have
hit this Capitol. How did we go from the whole world being behind us,
abandoning what has become, as Mr. Van Hollen often points out, the
forgotten front in Afghanistan, take our eye off the prize and expend
the amount of money, and, most importantly, our most precious resource,
our men and women who serve this country in Iraq?
[[Page H6349]]
{time} 1645
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, if one reviews the memoir of Paul O'Neill, former
Republican Secretary of the Treasury, who served in this Bush
administration for 2 years, and in that capacity was a member of the
National Security Council, you will discover that he was as surprised
as anyone when 10 days after this President was inaugurated at a
National Security Council meeting, there was a discussion about Iraq
and the need to remove Saddam Hussein who, about 6 weeks later on
February 22 of 2001, months before 9/11, there was a meeting when
Secretary Rumsfeld had a map of the oil fields in Iraq spread out on a
table.
The discussion, it was prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency,
and there was a discussion about how those oil fields would be divvied
up between nations and various big oil companies.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt, and thank you, Mr. Larson,
and others who are gathered here to talk about these very important
national security questions. As you pointed out, Mr. Delahunt and Mr.
Larson, we have taken our eye off the ball here. As we approach the
terrible fifth anniversary of the tragic attacks of 2001, September 11,
it is important to remember that the attacks upon our homeland were
launched by al Qaeda from Afghanistan and had nothing to do with Iraq,
nothing to do with Iraq.
Yet here, as we gather 5 years later, we have not finished the job in
Afghanistan. We have not finished the job against al Qaeda. Indeed, the
situation is now getting worse today than it was a year ago and even a
year before that.
Now, the President has said in the last 10 days that he wants to have
a national conversation about Iraq and national security, and he has
delivered a number of speeches. But when you listen to what he has had
to say, it is clear that unfortunately once again he is not interested
in the national conversation. Conversation implies a give and take, a
dialogue, an exchange of views.
But when you listen to the President, on the one hand he lays out his
idea of what he wants to go forward and then engages in finger-pointing
and name calling of anybody who disagrees with him. Secretary Rumsfeld
and Vice President Cheney have gone around this country engaging in
name calling and finger-pointing against anyone who disagrees with
them.
They got all the answers, they tell us. You know what? For years and
years they have gotten away with that by the majority in this Congress.
The Republican majority in this Congress has essentially said, yes, you
two have all the answers, and we are going to write you a blank check,
and we are not going to ask you the hard questions.
Well, I am glad the President wants to have a big national
conversation. Let's make this a real conversation on national security.
I say, let's have it, because I think when the American people look at
the facts on the ground, and the fact that this administration has made
our world and our country a much more dangerous place than it otherwise
had to be, that people will ask questions about whose judgment is best
in these matters.
Let us just think back to May 2003 aboard the aircraft carrier USS
Lincoln. The President gave a speech with a big banner behind him,
``mission accomplished,'' mission accomplished. That was May 2003, more
than 3 years ago. We haven't finished the mission in Afghanistan, and
we have got a mess on our hands in Iraq.
Let us just think back to more than a year ago. Vice President Cheney
said that the insurgency in Iraq was in its, quote, final throes, the
last gasp.
Well, we just had a Pentagon report come out a few days ago. Here is
what they had to say about that. In addition to a budding civil war or
a civil war, they say the Sunni-based insurgency remains, quote, potent
and viable.
For years now Secretary Rumsfeld has been giving us these sorts of
rosy scenarios about what would happen in Iraq, and he has been proven
wrong again and again and again.
So when the President and his people say to the American people, we
have got all the answers, I think the American people get it now that
they don't have all the answers. We need to have this debate and this
discussion.
Let me just quickly go back to the issue of Afghanistan, because the
world was with us. We were united as a Nation, we were united as a NATO
alliance, and we were united as an international community. The United
Nations unanimously passed a resolution saying they were with the
United States in its war on terror and its war on al Qaeda.
Yet, today, al Qaeda is still active, they are still plotting, they
are still trying to do harm to Americans and others around the world.
Yet, if you look at what is happening in Afghanistan right now, we have
got to be concerned. The United States is not doing all that it should
in Afghanistan. The major resurgence has occurred in the southern part
of Afghanistan. That has been the stronghold for the Taliban. Yet we
have reduced, reduced, the number of U.S. forces in southern
Afghanistan.
Second, we, the Bush administration, disbanded the only unit within
the CIA whose specific mission was to go after al Qaeda. They said, we
don't need it anymore. That's what they said about a month ago. That
was before the President again quoted Osama bin Laden a few days ago in
one of his speeches for why we still need to be concerned. Well, we
should be concerned. That is why what we are doing in Afghanistan has
not made sense.
Third, we just learned the other day that the opium production in
Afghanistan is at an all-time record, all-time record. We know that the
funds from those sales of those drugs are being used to fuel al Qaeda
and the Taliban.
Finally, finally, we just learned yesterday of this agreement now
between the Government of Pakistan, General Musharraf, has entered into
this agreement with the pro-Taliban militia, and the agreement says we,
the Pakistan military, will now take a hands-off posture along the
northwest frontier, that was the Waziristan part of Pakistan where the
Taliban have regrouped and where al Qaeda has regrouped and what they
have used to launch attacks into Afghanistan.
Now Musharraf is saying, no, that is not what he meant. But it is
very clear he has essentially said Pakistan military isn't coming after
you anymore, you Taliban who are in that part of Pakistan. We have a
hands-off policy. That is simply a signal to them that they can now
more freely operate to try to step up their attacks in Afghanistan,
that they can continue to collaborate with al Qaeda.
So here we are, here we are coming up on the fifth anniversary of
those tragic attacks launched from Afghanistan by al Qaeda because they
were given safe haven by the Taliban, and we haven't finished the job,
and we have reduced the amount of resources that we are committing to
completing the mission. Mission accomplished, nowhere near it
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President and Vice
President.
The gentleman from Connecticut may resume.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The President has
asked to engage, and the gentleman made several good points and one of
them was about a new dialogue, long overdue, and I think welcomed by
the American people. But as the gentleman from Maryland points out, a
one-way street.
Certainly no one knows better than the gentleman from Washington
State. No one was vilified more, both on this floor and in public,
because of love of country and speaking out, than Jim McDermott.
I recognize the gentleman from Washington State.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank you very much. As I sit here and I listen to
this today, I think about the Katrina event. You saw the President go
down and throw his arm around the guy who was fixing Katrina. He said,
Good job, Brownie. I mean, that has become a laughingstock.
Well, this President has done the same thing with Rumsfeld. Beginning
in 2004, when Abu Ghraib came out, the President showed up and said the
Secretary is doing a great job, right? This will not change as long as
the President keeps Rumsfeld in that job, because Rumsfeld is the
controlling power behind it all.
As long as the President puts him out there and let's him run, you
are going
[[Page H6350]]
to continue to have this stuff. Rumsfeld went to Iraq in July while we
were on vacation, right at the end, and they found the bodies of 20
kidnapped and murdered bus drivers the day he arrived. A bomber blew
himself up and killed seven people. The Secretary of Defense made what
I consider to be an interesting statement in response to that. He said,
each time I come to Iraq, I see progress.
Now, no one who has any kind of realistic view of this could say that
kind of thing. You could not be watching what is going on, when it is
to our troops who are dying, or the wounded who are coming home, or the
thousands of Iraqis who are being killed and say, I see progress. There
is simply, you have got your military people talking about the fact
that it is coming apart, you had Rumsfeld this week say to some
National Guardsmen from California, no, you can't go home, I know your
enlistment is up, but you have got to stay here for another 120 days.
We are going to send you into Baghdad to calm things down. It is a
mess, and it has been a mess from the start because Rumsfeld would
never listen. Like the President, he wouldn't listen. General Shinseki
came in and said, you are going to need 300,000 troops. Rumsfeld said,
you don't know what you are saying, you are out of here. Here is your
retirement. Get out of here.
That is the response to anybody who comes into this administration
and talks. Unless the President will dump Rumsfeld, you are not going
to get any change in the policy. What is the alternative to the people
of this country? The only alternative they have is on election day to
take the gavel away from the Republican majority so that we can have
hearings run by Democrats where some questions will be asked, where
there will be some accountability so that things will begin to come up
into the public view.
We have never found out what Halliburton's contracts are all about.
We haven't found out who is responsible for Abu Ghraib. No, there isn't
a soldier or a sailor or a marine or anyone near the military.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Is the gentleman suggesting that the more
than $9 billion that is unaccounted for, that this Congress actually
ought to go and find out what happened with those no-bid contracts, $9
billion?
Mr. McDERMOTT. Only if you care about taxpayer money. I mean, the
examples are so bald and so bad that it is almost laughable if it
wasn't what was going on today and it was taking us down the wrong
trail.
What has been said here today is, I was reading the Middle Eastern
papers today, everybody says that half of Afghanistan is now under
control of the Taliban. That is universal in the press.
The British general there is saying we are losing this thing; he is
worried. We will not get a change unless we get some hard questions
asked. We are never going to get them from the Republicans because they
are going to rubber-stamp what Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld and all the
rest of that bunch put together. I personally think this election is
the most important election we have had in my lifetime.
{time} 1700
You say to yourself maybe I am getting old or something, but I went
through Vietnam, and I went through a whole bunch of things. But this
one, if we have 2 more years of ``stay the course,'' God knows where we
are going to be economically and militarily and politically and
diplomatically in the world. We have got to get some change, and
Rumsfeld would be a start. There are some other people that should go,
but if the President can't see that Rumsfeld cannot handle it; he threw
out Paul O'Neill as the Secretary of the Treasury, and he threw out
some other people, Colin Powell and some others went down the road, but
he keeps the guy who got us in the mess because it means he would have
to admit that he made a huge mistake, and he can't do it. He can't do
it, and that is the biggest problem he has.
As politicians, sometimes you have to say, ``I was wrong. I made a
mistake.''
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman from Maine who has been to
the floor several times to talk about this very subject recently
traveled to New Orleans also where he traveled with the Army Corps of
Engineers where he saw firsthand what was going on there. As the
gentleman from Washington states, one of the many salient points he
made is the lack of accountability and the corollary between what has
happened here domestically with Hurricane Katrina and Iraq.
I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. I thank you all for the opportunity to be here and discuss
some of these important issues that we don't get to do during any
debate on resolutions or legislation. These are among the most
important issues we deal with.
I was down in New Orleans and in the gulf coast of Mississippi where
the incompetence of this administration was on display for everyone to
see. The same incompetence is on display with respect to the problems
we have created in Iraq. And I say ``created'' because I do believe
that in many ways this administration has created more problems in the
Middle East than they have solved.
I agree with the gentleman from Washington that a good part of this
has to do with the inadequate leadership at the Department of Defense,
but we should never forget that this policy is driven by the President
and the Vice President and there is a unanimity of thinking in this
administration about the Middle East, the conviction that we could
simply force our will on several hundred million people and bend them
to become something that we want them to become, regardless of their
own intentions.
But I wanted to speak for a minute tonight about how Congress, this
Republican Congress, has aided and abetted the administration by giving
up its constitutional role of exercising oversight over the executive
branch. It is absolutely stunning to me how both the House and the
Senate have done everything that they could to rubber stamp
administration policies in Iraq and cover up for them.
A few examples, going back to when Democrats controlled the Congress
in the 1980s, there was an Oversight Subcommittee on Armed Services,
and that oversight subcommittee discovered those $500 hammers and
$6,000 toilet seats and put an end to much of that kind of
overcharging. But when Republicans took over, they eliminated the
Oversight Subcommittee on Armed Services and billions of questionable
Halliburton contracts have gone unexamined, unexamined by either Armed
Services or by the Intelligence Committee or the Committee on
Government Reform.
The minority staff on the Committee on Government Reform has
identified over 200 specific misleading statements made by the
administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. Over on the Senate side,
remember they had Phase II, the Senate Intelligence Committee was going
to do a Phase II investigation. What they meant by that was instead of
beating up on the intelligence agencies like the CIA themselves, they
were going to look at the misuse of intelligence by the administration.
That was Phase II of their study.
It hasn't happened. Years have gone by, and the chairman of the
committee has said several times, ``We are going to get to that
later.'' But they are clearly not going to do it before any election.
In 2005, House Republicans voted down a resolution demanding an
investigation of Iraq intelligence. When you look at the House and you
look at the Senate, there is no question what this Republican Congress
has been doing. Rather than gather information, evidence, that could
clarify what has happened in the past and guide us to a better policy
in the future, it is all politics all the time and that means
protecting the President from being exposed, protecting the Vice
President from being exposed, protecting Donald Rumsfeld from being
exposed for having not spoken the truth.
So this entire Congress is complicit.
The Senate held a few hearings after Abu Ghraib, but no Senate
committee has conducted a comprehensive public probe of the alleged
abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram or the secret CIA
facilities that the President just acknowledged yesterday.
In the House, the majorities on three House committees voted down
resolutions seeking documents about detainee abuse. Democrats have been
saying we need the information in order to
[[Page H6351]]
do a better job in the future, and Republicans have circled the wagons
around the administration and refused to basically allow oversight.
On Iraq reconstruction, you go back to 2003, Donald Rumsfeld's
Pentagon awarded a $7 billion sole-source contract to Halliburton for
reconstruction. And 3 years later, auditors identified more than $1
billion in questionable and unsupported costs under that contract. A
billion dollars in Washington is still real money. If Congress was
simply doing its constitutionally mandated function, we would be
holding hearings on that. But no, the Republicans are not prepared to
investigate Halliburton. Vice President Cheney was once the CEO of
Halliburton, and this is ground we dare not go into, apparently, and
yet we have to, to fulfill our constitutional responsibility.
That is what we are basically saying here. This Republican Congress
has failed the country. The administration has failed the country. And
when Democrats control this chamber again, whether you have a
Republican President or a Democratic President, we are going to make
sure that this Congress acts like the Congress contemplated in the
Constitution and do our jobs.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman from New York started and
began this conversation by talking about what has transpired, and the
gentleman from Maryland talked about the President and his calling over
the last several days, both he and the Secretary of Defense and the
Vice President have been out there, along with the Secretary of State,
talking about this new agenda, and I believe the gentleman from New
York has some thoughts on that.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. It seems like we are being treated to a late
summer/early fall offensive, I would say smoke screen on the part of
this administration to convince the American people that we need to
stay the course in order to be safe.
Basically what they are doing is they are engaged in defending the
indefensible. The only way they can defend a war that the American
people have clearly turned against is to present it in a context that
makes it appear to be reasonable or defensible, but in fact quite the
opposite is the case.
I think all of us as elected officials, we have no more solemn
responsibility than to provide for the safety and security of those who
have elected us to represent them. But I think a fair-minded person has
to look at the record of where this administration has taken this
Nation and where this Congress, complicit in the strategies and
objectives of this administration, have taken this country.
Every single place you look, it reeks with failure. The 9/11
Commission presented to us 41 carefully crafted bipartisan
recommendations. This Congress has only acted on 20 or 21 of them. The
9/11 Commission, again a bipartisan group, has given this
administration and this Congress 14 Ds, 5 Fs and 2 incompletes on those
recommendations.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. What is the Congress's report card again?
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Fourteen Ds, five Fs and two incompletes; and
this is a leadership that is going to keep us safe and secure?
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. And we are approaching the fifth
anniversary.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. We are approaching the fifth anniversary, and
we have outstanding work on the part of this commission, bipartisan
work which is what we ought to be striving for. We ought to be
approaching the safety and security of this Nation in a bipartisan way.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Are any of those issues going to be
brought to the floor? Those recommendations, those outstanding
recommendations, will any of them be brought to the floor before we
adjourn for elections?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am not aware of anything on the calendar.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can just go back to a point made by Tom Allen. The
lack of accountability, the abrogation, if you will, of this body's
constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight.
We serve on different committees. I happen to be the senior Democrat,
the ranking member, on a subcommittee of International Relations that
is entitled Oversight and Investigations. We have not held one serious
hearing relative to Iraq in the past 2 years. And I know that, prior to
that, for the past 5 years, Iraq has been off the chart in terms of the
committee's considerations. You don't talk about it unless there is
good news.
What I wanted to do was to bring before the committee, not Secretary
Rumsfeld because we have heard enough from him. He is an F. He flunked.
But I wanted to bring before the committee the men that lead our
military and have served in the course of their service to this country
in roles implicating Iraq, in some cases very directly in Iraq.
Not one of these men have ever been invited to any committee in the
Congress so that we would have an opportunity to hear what they had to
say.
So one by one, they felt compelled to speak out themselves and
educate us and the American people as to the truth and the reality of
Iraq and the incompetence of this administration and most specifically
Donald Rumsfeld.
Let me just review a few.
Lieutenant General Greg Newbold, he is the top operations officer for
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was involved in the planning. He is
Commanding General, First Marine Division, with Legion of Merit, Navy
and Marine Corps Commendation Medals. He is a highly decorated, well-
respected general. He did not seek a promotion because he felt
compelled to leave. Here is what he had to say.
``What we are living with now are the consequences of successive
policy failures.'' He said that this year.
Major General Paul Eaton, who was given the responsibility but not
the resources to train Iraqi security forces, and we know what a joke
that has been, here is what he had to say, ``Two and a half more years
of that leadership,'' he was referring to Donald Rumsfeld and the
civilian leadership, ``two and a half more years of that leadership was
too long for my Nation, for my Army, and for my family.'' What an
indictment. What an indictment.
Lieutenant General John Riggs, ``They only need the military advice
when it satisfies their agenda.'' When it satisfies their agenda, that
is when they would call in a general and say, This is our agenda, what
do you think, General?
And then General Wesley Clark, ``They pressed for open warfare before
the diplomacy was finished. It was a tragic mistake. It was a strategic
blunder.''
{time} 1715
Mr. McDERMOTT. We could go on with this for a long time, but we have
got Major General John Batiste. He was the commander of the 1st
Division in Iraq, and he said: ``Rumsfeld and his team have turned what
should have been a deliberate victory in Iraq into a prolonged
challenge.'' I mean, that is a guy who was on the ground, who was there
when the war was going on.
General Zinni, who was the central command of the whole forces, he
served in every level of command, and he said: ``We are paying the
price for a lack of credible planning, or the lack of a plan.'' Ten
years' worth of planning was thrown away. That is why we are in the
mess we are. Because Rumsfeld said we don't need these guys like Zinni,
who is my number one guy in the U.S. Central Command. That means he
headed everything in the whole area of the Middle East.
Major General Swannack said: ``I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is
the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in
managing the war against Saddam in Iraq.'' Now, he was commander of the
82nd Airborne. We all know about the Airborne. We know these are real
soldiers. These are people who follow the leader. They do not speak out
until they cannot stand it any longer.
And, finally, Lieutenant General Paul Riper said: ``If I was
President, I would have relieved him 3 years ago.'' And he said that in
2006.
Now, this man was wounded in action in Vietnam. He won the Silver
Star medal with a gold star, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star. This
man has been wounded, has stood up in the worst kind of war. And,
remember, Rumsfeld never served. Bush never served. Cheney never
served. Wolfowitz never served. You cannot find anybody who has ever
been in a war. And the
[[Page H6352]]
guys who know, who have done it, who sent people out to die and been
right out there with them say things like, If I was President, I would
have relieved him 3 years ago. That is 2003. That is when it started,
when they started ill prepared without the battle armor, without the
vehicle armor, without sufficient supplies. We are going to just run in
and do it, and we are going to be out in 6 months. Remember when they
told that lie? And all of us stood around and said, 6 months? Really?
This is going to be a cakewalk.
They didn't tell the truth to the American people or to their own
troops. And that is why guys like this say get them out of there if we
are going to have any change.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen from
Maine, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington State for
coming down here this evening.
We come down here out of love of country and the desire to fulfill
our constitutional responsibility. There is no doubt in my mind that
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle love their country as
much as we do.
I cannot understand why an administration continues to attack those
who, out of love of country, speak out and dare to speak truth to
power, that are willing to ask the unimagined questions and perhaps
give unwelcomed answers to the administration. But that is the work
that is required of elected Members of the United States Congress under
our Constitution. That is our sworn obligation to the people of this
great country of ours and will continue to be our obligation.
It is our sincere hope that we can move this Nation in a new
direction. And with a Democratic-controlled Congress, we believe that
is the best hope for our colleagues on the other side to join with us
in creating what is in the best interest of our troops, our families,
and the very security of this Nation.
Thank you, gentlemen, each of you, for joining us this evening.
____________________